<div dir="ltr">Supported +1<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 29 January 2018 at 17:52, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:t.tropina@mpicc.de" target="_blank">t.tropina@mpicc.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>All,</p>
<p>I support Rafik's approach.</p>
<p>1) we can submit the comment supporting the model 3.</p>
<p>2) we can tweak 2b and look more thoroughly at eco meanwhile and
clarify some things that are not clear there for me yet - like LEA
access and some other. <br>
</p>
<p>3) as we have to be rational, we can bargain further with a mix
of 3 and 2b, if needed. <br>
</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Tanya <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_6422441272642263591moz-cite-prefix">On 28/01/18 08:55, Rafik Dammak wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Hi,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">while I checked the 3 models, I am not
familiar with the eco model or comment and so making any
judgment hard. is it similar to one of the models or something
totally different proposal?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">maybe as context, we should recall that
those models are supposed to be interim solutions. One risk
with model 2b or a similar (eco?) is what French calls "le
temporaire qui dure", a lasting temporary. It means having a
workaround that will become de facto the solution with all its
drawbacks and we won't have a real say in the process such
accreditation or certification (we can learn from the current
discussion on implementing of PPSAI and how staff views differ
from the policy).</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">let's think in practical fashion here:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">- we got a deadline and need to submit
a comment</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">- the discussion is still continuing
e.g. webinar this week and beyond</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">- there are calls for extension by BC
and IPC because they want to propose more models beyond the 3
tabled.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">I guess one approach is to have the
comment saying that the model 3 to meet the current deadline
because its restrictions is a more safe solution till we move
for a restrictive layered option (2b or eco model) after a
real community involvement and discussion. Having a model 3
used is a real ncentive for everyone to work on a long time
solution acknowledging all concerns from the different parties
instead of tricking us to accept an ill-designed option. the
document made by Stephanie is a starting point for us to work
on the details in coming months.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Best,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Rafik</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2018-01-29 1:14 GMT+09:00 Stephanie
Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.<wbr>utoronto.ca</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I am sorry
I let you down. To be frank, the discussion on
the main list was all over the map, my desire to
throw my comment out there to be trashed by folks
not following these matters was pretty minimal.
However, I have had a complete meltdown with my
computer and my ISP, which slowed me down
enormously, and there was no room for error.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Here are a
few compromise positions:</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">1. I can
summarize at the end of the analysis of the
different positions, the various views (I
acknowledged EFF's position but did not go into
it.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">2. I can
add a more thorough discussion of the law
enforcement ask, the IP lawyer ask, etc. and why
option 3 deals with those issues successfully.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">3. I can
discuss the data commissioner's expressed views on
these matters. There will be no support from them
for a wholesale cutting off of access for cyber
investigators. IF you have any ideas on how to
square that circle, I am all ears. It is a big
problem....while I can be accused of caving in to
a moderate position because I have been both a
govt policy/legislative wonk and an exec in a
privacy commissioner's office, I think you have to
acknowledge I have decades of experience fighting
off law enforcement in back rooms. If we want to
be taken seriously, we have to acknowledge there
is a problem. (it is of course their fault there
is a problem, but that is another narrative....)</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I am also
very happy saying there is a wide range of views
in NCSG. But if you want a narrow answer to the
question of whether it is 2b or 3, please pay
attention to what Goran said in the IPC webinar
the other day...do not feel tied to 1,2, or 3, we
simply pulled them into models. COmments on all
aspects raised, suggestions of other models etc
are welcome.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">SO I think
we can say of your models we like 2b for this, 3
for that, and our favorite proposal so far is the
ECO one. Strategically, and bearing in mind we
still have years of pdps ahead of us and this is
an interim measure, supporting the registrars
seems to me a good idea, particularly when they
have gone to the work and expense they have to
produce an excellent proposal.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Have to go
drop the dog at camp, perhaps we can talk this
evening in LA or tomorrow morning at breakfast?</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers
Steph</font></font><br>
</p>
<div>
<div class="m_6422441272642263591h5">
<div class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297moz-cite-prefix">On
2018-01-28 10:36, farzaneh badii wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I
tell you what is sticking in my throat
Stephanie: You are way too late and we relied
on you and you delivered late. I don't want
Law Enforcement be viewed as legitimate force
globally and you know where I am from. Does
Eco model address my worry?</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at
10:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoront<wbr>o.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida
Grande">Well I am sorry that I did
not get the comment in as well.
There is a lot to read and I have
read it (unlike many). WE need to
know where the opposition is coming
from.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida
Grande">The ECO comments have been
out there a while, and they deal
with the models. There is
absolutely nothing wrong with
endorsing another group's position.
Their legal analysis is excellent,
in my view.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida
Grande">Ignoring the reality that
there is a cybercrime problem out
there is, in my view, not a
thoughtful position to take. I can
attempt to reword it if you point me
to precisely what is sticking in
your throats. We want layered
access....a failure to support
layered access at this point in time
will set us back years, we finally
have ICANN agreeing to it.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida
Grande">I am happy to send my
comments in myself if you don't
support them. I think they are well
informed and realistic. I think
Option 3 was thrown out there as a
poison pill and I am not taking it.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida
Grande">let me know.....</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida
Grande">cheers Steph</font></font><br>
</p>
<div>
<div class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297h5">
<div class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753moz-cite-prefix">On
2018-01-28 09:50, farzaneh badii
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="auto">Hello Stephanie </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Is eco model in
the models that offered by
Icann? Is it model 2b which you
supported in the doc you sent
us? If not then we cannot
support it now. I suggest going
for the highest protection now
until we work out something
better. You can always go down
from highest protection to
layered access etc but for now
and since we don't have much
time to reach consensus I think
we can stick to model 3. I wish
you had sent us your document
sooner so that we could work on
it. Also your argument for not
supporting model 3 in the
document is not really based on
substance it's based on the fact
that it won't get support in the
community. There is a May
deadline. Community can come up
with consensus after the
deadline on another leas
protective model. but ICANN org
can't wait! <br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I suggest pc
members weigh in on this
deadline is tomorrow and we
would like to know our positoon
before the intersessional.</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at
9:17 AM Stephanie Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoront<wbr>o.ca</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I
will try to get the
revised comments on
the models that have
been submitted in
before I run for the
plane at 2 EDT...but
that may not happen.
The legal analysis
will come next week,
it is a lot harder and
more complex....but I
want to get my
questions on the
table. It will be a
long time before this
is over....</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">We
need to endorse the
ECO model very
strongly, in my view.
While option 3 looks
good, it is rather
unworkable.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers
SP</font></font><br>
</p>
</div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936moz-cite-prefix">On
2018-01-27 14:09, Ayden
Férdeline wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Thanks Rafik</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>I’m going to hold off
on endorsing this for
24 hours until I read
the comments
currently being drafted
by Stephanie. </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>To be clear, this is
not to say that I do not
endorse this statement.
It sounds logical to me
and consistent with our
principles. But if
Stephanie has a 15-page
document coming I’d like
to make sure we’re being
consistent in our
messaging. </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>Of course, being so
close to the final day
for submissions, I’ll
write again on-list
tomorrow in the absence
of any other statements
being on the table, as
we cannot miss this
submission deadline. </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>Sincere thanks to
Milton for drafting
this. </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes, Ayden</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div id="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936protonmail_mobile_signature_block">Sent
from ProtonMail Mobile</div>
<div> <br>
<div>
<div> <br>
</div>
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018
at 10:50, Rafik Dammak
<<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936protonmail_quote" type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Hi all,
<div dir="auto"> <br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">We
got a comment
for the GDPR
compliance
model. The
deadline for
submission ins
the 29th Jan,
which is the
coming monday.
We need act
quickly within
this weekend .</div>
<div dir="auto"> <br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Best,</div>
<div dir="auto"> <br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Rafik </div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">----------
Forwarded
message
---------- <br>
From: "Mueller,
Milton L" <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>>
<br>
Date: Jan 26,
2018 6:05 PM <br>
Subject:
[NCSG-Discuss]
Comments on the
Whois compliance
models <br>
To: <<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu</a><wbr>>
<br>
Cc: <br>
<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936m_-2216294355849967392WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I
offer the
following as a
first draft of
the NCSG
position on
the 12 January
2018 call for
comments
released by
ICANN org. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Principles
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our
evaluation of
the models
offered by
ICANN are
based on three
fundamental
principles. No
model that
fails to
conform to all
three is
acceptable to
the NCSG. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1.
The purpose of
whois must be
strictly tied
to ICANN's
mission. That
is, the data
that is
collected and
the data that
are published
must directly
and
demonstrably
contribute to
ICANN's
mission as
defined in
Article 1 of
its new
bylaws. We
reject any
definition of
Whois purpose
that is based
on the way
people happen
to make use of
data that can
be accessed
indiscriminately
in a public
directory. The
fact that
certain people
currently use
Whois for any
purpose does
not mean that
the purpose of
Whois is to
provide thick
data about the
domain and its
registrant to
anyone who
wants it for
any reason. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2.
Whois service,
like the DNS
itself, should
be globally
uniform and
not vary by
jurisdiction.
ICANN was
created to
provide
globalized
governance of
the DNS so
that it would
continue to be
globally
compatible and
coordinated.
Any solution
that involves
fragmenting
the policies
and practices
of Whois along
jurisdictional
lines is not
desirable. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3.
No tiered
access
solution that
involves
establishing
new criteria
for access can
feasibly be
created in the
next 3 months.
We would
strongly
resist
throwing the
community into
a hopeless
rush to come
up with
entirely new
policies,
standards and
practices
involving
tiered access
to data, and
we do not want
ICANN staff to
invent a
policy that is
not subject to
community
review and
approval. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Based
on these three
principles, we
believe that
Model 3 is the
only viable
option
available.
Model 3
minimizes the
data publicly
displayed to
that which is
required for
maintaining
the stability,
security and
resiliency of
the DNS. Model
3 could be
applied across
the board, and
would be
presumptively
legal
regardless of
which
jurisdiction
the registrar,
registry or
registrant are
in. And Model
3 relies on
established
legal due
process for
gaining access
to additional
information. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There
is room for
discussion
about how much
data could be
publicly
displayed
under Model 3
consistent
with ICANN's
mission. E.g.,
it may be
within ICANN's
mission to
include
additional
data in the
public record,
such as an
email address
for the
technical
contact and
even possibly
the name of
the
registrant. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The
process of
gaining access
to additional
data in Model
1 is
completely
unacceptable.
Self-certification by any third party requestor is, we believe, not
compliant with
GDPR nor does
is such access
justified by
the purpose of
Whois or
ICANN's
mission. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Model
2 might
possibly be
acceptable if
an suitable
set of
criteria and
processes were
devised, but
it simply is
not feasible
for such a
certification
program to be
developed in 3
months. A
certification
program thrown
together in a
rush poses
huge risks for
loopholes,
poor
procedures,
and a legal
challenge to
ICANN, either
from DPAs or
from
individuals
affected. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dr.
Milton L.
Mueller </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Professor,
School of
Public Policy
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Georgia
Institute of
Technology </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div><span class="">
<br>
<fieldset class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936moz-quote-pre">______________________________<wbr>_________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753m_6396244989369319936moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
</div><span class="">
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div dir="ltr">-- <br>
</div>
<div class="m_6422441272642263591m_-8127500588600439297m_-8128406081380222753gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana,
sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div><span class="">
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
<br>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div><span class="">
<br>
<fieldset class="m_6422441272642263591mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a class="m_6422441272642263591moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a class="m_6422441272642263591moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS<br>Coordinator<br>The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio<br>MDI Road Kanifing South<br>P. O. Box 421 Banjul<br>The Gambia, West Africa<br>Tel: (220) 4370240<br>Fax:(220) 4390793<br>Cell:(220) 9912508<br>Skype: pons_utd<br><i><span style="color:rgb(0,0,153)"><a href="http://www.ymca.gm" target="_blank">www.ymca.gm</a><br><a href="http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/" target="_blank">http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/</a><br><a href="http://jokkolabs.net/en/" target="_blank">http://jokkolabs.net/en/</a><br><a href="http://www.waigf.org" target="_blank">www.waigf.org</a><br><a href="http://www.itag.gm" target="_blank">www,insistglobal.com</a><br><a href="http://www.npoc.org" target="_blank">www.npoc.org</a><br><a href="http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753" target="_blank">http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753</a><br></span></i><cite><span style="color:rgb(0,0,153)"><a href="http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org" target="_blank">www.diplointernetgovernance.org</a><br><br></span><b><span style="color:rgb(0,0,153)"><br></span></b><br></cite><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>